Short-term outcomes of Pancreatoduodenectomy in patients with liver cirrhosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objectives: The objective of this study was to compare short-term outcomes of pancreatoduodenectomy between patients with and without liver cirrhosis (LC). Background: It is not uncommon to encounter a patient with LC and with an indication for pancreatoduodenectomy; however, the knowledge on the outcomes after pancreatoduodenectomy in patients with LC is poorly developed. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement standards. Short-term outcomes of pancreatoduodenectomy between patients with and without LC were compared using random effects modeling and the certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE system. Results: Analysis of 18,184 patients from 11 studies suggested LC increased the risk of postoperative mortality (odds ratio [OR]: 3.94, P < 0.00001), major complications (OR: 2.25, P = 0.0002), and pancreatic fistula (OR: 1.73, P = 0.03); it resulted in more blood loss (mean difference [MD]: 204.74 ml, P = 0.0003) and longer hospital stay (MD: 2.05 days, P < 0.00001). LC did not affect delayed gastric emptying (OR: 1.33, P = 0.21), postoperative bleeding (OR: 1.28, P = 0.42), and operative time (MD: 3.47 minutes, P = 0.51). Among the patients with LC, Child-Pugh B or C class increased blood loss (MD: 293.33 ml, P < 0.00001), and portal hypertension increased postoperative mortality (OR: 2.41, P = 0.01); the other outcomes were not affected. Conclusions: Robust evidence with high certainty suggests LC of any severity with or without portal hypertension results in at least a fourfold increase in mortality and a twofold increase in morbidity after pancreatoduodenectomy. Whether such risks increase with the severity of the liver disease or decrease with optimization of underlying liver disease should be the focus of future research

Histopathologic predictors of survival and recurrence in resected ampullary adenocarcinoma

Objective: The aim of the study was to define histopathologic characteristics that independently predict overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS), in patients who underwent resection of an ampullary adenocarcinoma with curative intent. Summary Background Data: A broad range of survival rates have been described for adenocarcinoma of the ampulla of Vater, presumably due to morphological heterogeneity which is a result of the different epitheliums ampullary adenocarcinoma can arise from (intestinal or pancreaticobiliary). Large series with homogenous patient selection are scarce. Methods: A retrospective multicenter cohort analysis of patients who underwent pancreatoduodenectomy for ampullary adenocarcinoma in 9 European tertiary referral centers between February 2006 and December 2017 was performed. Collected data included demographics, histopathologic details, survival, and recurrence. OS and DFS analyses were performed using Kaplan–Meier curves and Cox proportional hazard models. Results: Overall, 887 patients were included, with a mean age of 66 ± 10 years. The median OS was 64 months with 1-, 3-, 5-, and 10-year OS rates of 89%, 63%, 52%, and 37%, respectively. Histopathologic subtype, differentiation grade, lymphovascular invasion, perineural invasion, T-stage, N-stage, resection margin, and adjuvant chemotherapy were correlated with OS and DFS. N-stage (HR = 3.30 [2.09–5.21]), perineural invasion (HR = 1.50 [1.01–2.23]), and adjuvant chemotherapy (HR = 0.69 [0.48–0.97]) were independent predictors of OS in multivariable analysis, whereas DFS was only adversely predicted by N-stage (HR = 2.65 [1.65–4.27]). Conclusions: Independent predictors of OS in resected ampullary cancer were N-stage, perineural invasion, and adjuvant chemotherapy. N-stage was the only predictor of DFS. These findings improve predicting survival and recurrence after resection of ampullary adenocarcinoma

Differences in Lymph Node Metastases Patterns Among Non-pancreatic Periampullary Cancers and Histologic Subtypes: An International Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study and Systematic Review

Background: Standard lymphadenectomy for pancreatoduodenectomy is defined for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and adopted for patients with non-pancreatic periampullary cancer (NPPC), ampullary adenocarcinoma (AAC), distal cholangiocarcinoma (dCCA), or duodenal adenocarcinoma (DAC). This study aimed to compare the patterns of lymph node metastases among the different NPPCs in a large series and in a systematic review to guide the discussion on surgical lymphadenectomy and pathology assessment. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included patients after pancreatoduodenectomy for NPPC with at least one lymph node metastasis (2010–2021) from 24 centers in nine countries. The primary outcome was identification of lymph node stations affected in case of a lymph node metastasis per NPPC. A separate systematic review included studies on lymph node metastases patterns of AAC, dCCA, and DAC. Results: The study included 2367 patients, of whom 1535 had AAC, 616 had dCCA, and 216 had DAC. More patients with pancreatobiliary type AAC had one or more lymph node metastasis (67.2% vs 44.8%; P < 0.001) compared with intestinal-type, but no differences in metastasis pattern were observed. Stations 13 and 17 were most frequently involved (95%, 94%, and 90%). Whereas dCCA metastasized more frequently to station 12 (13.0% vs 6.4% and 7.0%, P = 0.005), DAC metastasized more frequently to stations 6 (5.0% vs 0% and 2.7%; P < 0.001) and 14 (17.0% vs 8.4% and 11.7%, P = 0.015). Conclusion: This study is the first to comprehensively demonstrate the differences and similarities in lymph node metastases spread among NPPCs, to identify the existing research gaps, and to underscore the importance of standardized lymphadenectomy and pathologic assessment for AAC, dCCA, and DAC

The development and validation of a scoring tool to predict the operative duration of elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Peer reviewe

How to decide which patient-reported outcome measure to use? A practical guide for plastic surgeons

The use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) is increasing across all medical specialties, as their importance to patient care is validated. They are likely to play a particularly important role in plastic and reconstructive surgery where outcomes are often subjective, and the recent guidance from the Royal College of Surgeons of England advising their use in cosmetic surgery highlights this. To drive their routine use across our specialty, it is important that clinicians are capable of understanding the often complex and confusing language that surrounds their design and validation. In this article, we describe the process of PROM design and validation, and we attempt to ‘demystify’ the language used in the health outcome literature. We present the important steps that a well-designed PROM must go through and suggest a straightforward guide for selecting the most appropriate PROMs for use in clinical practice. We hope that this will encourage greater use of PROM data across plastic and reconstructive surgery and ultimately help improve outcomes for our patients.</p